Talk:Religion/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Religion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Best way is to study other Religion.

I request all Christians to study about Hindu Religion and Hindu should and must study about Islam and Islam for Christian than and only than (complete the sentence). vkvora

hello religion is very complecated but what you believe in is great and you should be very proud and happyy. But you should never make-fun of anyones religion because if your very proud of what you believe in they should be able to believe in theirs too!!!! thank you for looking at the updat and keep checkin it out but remember everyone is equal!!!

peace to you all!!!

From the opening paragraph:. . .?

This seems a little slanted and definitely unjustified.

"Also, religion is the reason there is war. There would be less killing without religion and the world would be better off." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.239.159 (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Please do not Spam Wikipedia Entries

Regarding your recent addition of links to Religion among other entries: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.PelleSmith 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am new and unfamiliar to your rules. Sorry. After reading the links in your note, I am still unclear as to your specific objections. The linked blog is the latest update to a Webpage that is part of a Free Education Site - World Religions. The subject is very pertinent to the subject under study. Will you please scan the linked material and then cite your particular reason for deleting. If necessary, I can change the blog link to the original (but unedited) Webpage link - http://www.innerquest.org.ph/messagemadeplain/iq3131lesson3.htm. Thanks. Angel 02:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Blogs and personal webpages are not acceptable by default. -- Jeff3000 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

- - Thank you Jeff3000. Am I correct then to conclude that if I am to change the link from the blog to the Webpage, this would be acceptable?

I have also added 2 other links to Spiritual Studies and Biblical Studies. These links were actual Webpages. Both materials are not only new perspectives, but pertinent, appropriate and provide useful and helpful information in my opinion. However, PelleSmith without even going over the material also similarly reverted them citing linkspam as his justification. I would like to hear from PelleSmith concerning his reasons for doing this. May I also hear from the others here how they feel concerning similar situations.

In my understanding as specifically expressed in your Rules, all Rules are not inflexible or set in stone but can be bent if such can be shown to be in the best interest of most users. More information sheds more light the better for everyone to come to an informed conclusion. Both pros and cons, all sides, should be aired in order that the Truth may out.Angel 11:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with this site? If you are then linking it is inappropriate because it is self-promotion. (And on the blog it says "Angel Luz - Innerquest"). So is that you Angel2000? If you are not officially affiliated then how do your links enrich the entries in question? The website www.innerquest.org.ph provides a particular view of religion, a very specific POV and interpretation of spiritual experiences. Is it a view held by many? Just because this site isn't officially a "blog" doesn't make it any less of a narrow point of view on the subject matter--much like a blog. Read the link again that that Jeff posted. The point of External Links in terms of an entry like this one is to provide space for relevent, enriching information that cannot otherwise be put into the entry. If we accommodated everyone's, or every organizations own spiritual point of view and/or insight the entry would be 99.99% External Links. This applies to the other two entries as well.PelleSmith 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

- - - - Yes. I am affiliated and I am the writer, in fact. The site has been adjudged worthy of inclusion in the DMOZ Directory since 1999 under Society: Religion and Spirituality: New Age: Ascended Masters.

Other editors after much study and evaluation do not consider the site contents as being limited to a narrow point of view. They have instead opted to include the site in their directory and some readers have given it a 4 and ½ star rating.

I have not attempted to edit the information into your article so as not to upset your trend of thought. However, as in the other Wikipedia articles, opposing views are inserted where they can least be disruptive – as here in the links.

You would not want Wikipedia to be viewed as a less than comprehensive source or an encyclopedia that does not include as much relevant and important information as your other competitors.

I ask that those here relax the rules for the greater benefit of your users and allow the inclusion of this link in the articles. Angel 13:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. For content to be placed in the article, it has to be published by verifiable and reliable sources. Self-published material with no editorial oversight are not acceptable, and your website, regardless of if it is in a blog or other format does not pass Wikipedia policies. -- Jeff3000 14:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In regard to your reference to reliability (Non-scholarly sources):

Attributability – Everything anyone needs to know about us is available by visiting http://www.innerquest.org.ph/aboutus.htm

Expertise – Who best would know what the Spirits of Truth teach but those who are their students in their schools or centers. We have gained our knowledge direct from the source by way of our own personal experiences. All others can only come to know in part by hearing of them from other direct witnesses or reading Scriptures and books written by others.

Bias – Everyone who writes writes with a bias. Most are biased in favor of the traditional and the conservative, the old knowledge rather than the new. This is not a NPOV. The old and the traditional have always undergone and will undergo some new changes over time. This is fact. Where possible, we always try to integrate the new with the old. However, more often, this is not possible. Instead, an encyclopedia, the purpose of which is principally to provide credible and comprehensive information, can present both sides and all important aspects bearing on the subject and allow its users to choose and determine for themselves which among the alternatives or positions offered are best applicable and acceptable to them. While presenting different POVs, it should not favor any. Full disclosure is best.

Editorial oversight – Less than half of the materials admittedly underwent editing by others. Students of the Spirits of Truth are different from others. To us, sources, authors and authorities, and all messengers be they sanctioned or divine are not important. It is the message that is all-important. We should question and subject all propositions to analysis and test. Only those that test true in the light of our personal experience should be accepted and everything else should be rejected or judgment suspended until it can be subsequently verified and validated.

Replicability – All seekers and students of Truth will eventually arrive at the same conclusions provided they do their own seeking. Truth is One. However, there are levels in the order of evolution. Everyone proceeds forward grade by grade.

Declaration of sources and Corroboration – A comprehensive discussion of how the Spirits of Truth assist and guide their students can be found by visiting http://www.innerquest.org.ph/secretsofthekingdom/iq325holyspirit2.htm. In addition, it is important to note that the InnerQuest materials do not represent the writer’s own POV, but is in fact the integration of all POVs. Confirmations are available by cross-referencing the teachings and beliefs espoused by all sectors of society, both worldly and spiritual – the scientific, the academe, all the religions and all new sources. Many are featured in Wikipedia, including the Bible, Aquarian Gospel, Theosophy, Spiritualism, Spiritism, Allan Kardec, Edgar Cayce, Lobsang Rampa, Ruth Montgomery and others. The Spirit Guides speaking through InnerQuest connects them all in One.

Confidentiality – In our studies, almost nothing is secret. Most everything is revealed and explained. Further, confirmations are available through one’s own personal experiencing. However, understanding depends on the student, according to his efforts and just deserts. There are levels to every teaching even here on earth.

Recognition by other reliable sources – The materials in the InnerQuest Website are mostly New Teachings that form part of the New Age. Nevertheless, they originate from and relate to some earlier sources. These sources are named in the appropriate Webpages.

Age of the source and rate of change of the subject – Divine revelation is as old as man. However, for our purposes we quote the words of Jesus:

"I have used proverbs to tell you these things, but the time is coming when the truth shall not be so veiled and I will speak to you plainly about the Father." (JN 16)

"If you adhere to my teaching, you will really be my disciples; and you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free." (JN 8)

"Oh, there is so much more I want to tell you, but you cannot understand it now. When the Spirit of Holiness and Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth." (JN 16)

Persistence – The InnerQuest Website has been online since 1999. Except for minor editing for grammatical, literary and factual errors, there have been very few changes made and none where the divine principles are concerned. God’s Truth is eternal. All true sources will concur.

I will appeal no further than what I have already written here, except to answer your questions or provide clarifications.

I must remind you that Wikipedia constitutes the collective will of every user. Let yourself be heard. Each of you individually must decide for yourself what is in the best interest of Wikipedia and its users. It is your consensus that will decide this issue. Choose not to withhold vital information from yourselves and others that will enable you to more properly appreciate the Divine Teachings.

I ask again that you allow the inclusion of the InnerQuest links in Wikipedia articles. I will await your collective final decision. Angel 02:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry your arguments just don't pass muster.

Attributability: Yes, one of the core policies of Wikipedia is verifiability, and while your website might be verifiable (it is not at this point since it is a personal website and doesn't pass Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, not every thing that is verifiable is included in Wikipedia. You should read What Wikipedia is Not.
Expertise: Your comment on expertise that "Who best would know what the Spirits of Truth teach but those who are their students" is besides the point. The point is who is Spirits of Truth and why would their view be important. Sources on the views of the Spirits of Truth would only be acceptable in a Spirits of Truth article. (From the verifiability policy, "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material") Also from the neutral point of view policy section on undue weight section "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia" (I should mention at this point that for there to be a Students of Truth article, there must be third-party verifiable sources about the organization and it must be notable under Wikipedia's Notability guidelines.)
Bias: Yes there are biases, but Wikipedia only publishes things that are published in reliable sources under the neutral point of view, and once again note that minority views need not be published. Your website does not pass the reliable source guideline and is a tiny minority view.
Editorial oversight: While your organization's belief of what is important or not important and that everything should be tested may be a good technique (I sincerely believe in Independent Investigation of Truth), but your organization's belief is besides the point. The point is Wikipedia policy, and self-published resources by definition are not acceptable in Wikipedia.
Replicability: What does this have to do with inclusion in Wikipedia. It might be a claim of of Students of Truth, and would only be acceptable in an article on Students of Truth.
Declaration of sources and Corroboration, Confidentiality, and others: All your arguments have nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies including verifiability, reliable sources and undue weight. -- 03:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. To us students, the term Holy Spirit means just that -- a spirit that is already holy. But instead of calling them by their collective group name, we prefer to call them Spirits of Truth or Spirits of Light, our ascended Brothers. Their group constitutes the First Class of Spirits - Pure Spirits. In their work of assisting us in our development, they are joined by others below their rank. Based on one classification, there are 10 Groups, from the Pure and Holy Spirits to the Impure. For more on them, click on http://www.innerquest.org.ph/articles/iq2305orderspirits.htm.

FIRST ORDER and CLASS — PURE SPIRITS

General Characteristics — The influence of matter, null; a superiority, both intellectual and moral, so absolute as to constitute what, in comparison with the spirits of all the other orders, may be termed perfection.

Spirits of this order have passed through every degree of the scale of progress and have freed themselves from all the impurities of materiality. Having attained the sum of perfection of which created beings are susceptible, they no longer have to undergo either trials or expiations. Being no longer subject to reincarnation in perishable bodies, they enter on the life of eternity in the immediate presence of God. They are in the enjoyment of a beatitude which is unalterable, because they are no longer subject to the wants and vicissitudes of material life; but this beatitude is not the monotonous idleness of perpetual contemplation. They are the messengers and ministers of God, the executors of His orders in the maintenance of universal harmony. They exercise a sovereign command over all spirits inferior to themselves, aid them in accomplishing the work of their purification, and assign to each of them a mission proportioned to the progress already made by them. To assist men in their distresses, to excite them to the love of good or to the expiation of the faults which keep them back on the road to the supreme felicity, are for them congenial occupations. They are sometimes spoken of as angels, archangels or seraphim. They can, when they choose to do so, enter into communication with men. Angel 05:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please STOP This has ceased to be a discussion of the Religion entry and has become a staging ground for preaching. Please take this form of discussion to your user talk pages at the very least. This talk page, as are all entry talk pages, is a space for discussing the entry and its contents. Thanks.PelleSmith 12:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this link SPAM? Please weigh in.

User Angel2000 desires some kind of "collective decision" about whether or not the links to his own web page are considered SPAM as he posts them on Wikipedia entries like this one (the original post was a copy from his blog but the materials all come from the website below). Can others please offer some insight to Angel since apparently neither Jeff nor I are convincing him.

http://www.innerquest.org.ph/secretsofthekingdom/iq325holyspirit2.htm

Are these links SPAM?PelleSmith 12:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: SPAM. While interesting, adding such a link would be no better than using Wikipedia as a directory. There is already a link available to New Age. Moreover, many of these recent posts have taken on form of evangelizing. That is not acting in good faith of the rules, however flexible we would like them to be. We could certainly list the thousands of websites that proclaim a unique view of the world and faith...but isn't that the job of Google? This in no way deligitimizes the views or beliefs of the Inner Quest organization. However, the following quote demonstrates the POV that Wikipedia is trying to avoid:

If you believe you are already saved, needing to do nothing more, if you think you already know the Truth or that you don't and no one can, if you feel that there is nothing more that you need to learn or you are content not knowing, then STOP — close this page, and don't ever come back. (http://www.innerquest.org.ph/index.html)

So, I suggest keeping this out of the entry. Cheers--Jonashart 14:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone for being a pain. My intentions however are honorable. This is to clarify my request for inclusion of the following links to Wikipedia articles for reasons already enumerated, previously:

Religion: Continuing progressive revelations and the unity of all religious teachings -- http://www.innerquest.org.ph/secretsofthekingdom/iq3231worldreligions.htm

Spiritual studies: Inner Quest, a Free Education Website -- http://www.innerquest.org.ph/

Biblical studies: The Message made plain – The Inner Quest free study course on the Teachings of Jesus -- http://www.innerquest.org.ph/messagemadeplain/iq31messagemadeplain.htm

Please feel free to express your true sentiments. Everyone is entitled to his own views. I will abide by your decision. Thank you. Angel 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam, definitely, all three. Proselytizing POV website. Fram 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While I do respect your views, I notice that only a few of you have expressed their opinion and I suspect that these opinions were rendered without you first conducting even a cursory study of the matter. Hence my clarifications. Further, it is questionable whether a true consensus can be reached where only a very few opt to signify their decision while the rest keep silent.

I feel that content, substance and perceived benefit to all users should be the main determining factors in deciding whether to include information and links in Wikipedia articles. Certainly not popularity. The rules are secondary and should be enforced or relaxed depending on the merits.

I ask that you please go over the proposed linked Article on World Religions comparing it with the contents of other already inserted links and evaluate this matter more throughly before rendering your individual decision to INCLUDE or NOT INCLUDE.

As it stands now, PelleSmith, Jeff, Jonashart and Fram have voted to NOT INCLUDE based solely on the basis of the Rules. Do they speak for all of you?

I will wait 30 more days to allow ample time for everyone to come to a decision. Thank you. Angel 03:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assumptions, but I have checked the links and done more than a "cursory study of the matter". I don't see any useful content, little substance, and certainly no benefit to all users in your links (they have no benefit for me, so they can't have benefits for all users). Furthermore; what you feel should be the determining factors for including links is irrelevant here. We have to stick to the guidelines and policies, like WP:EL. If you think those are wrong, try to change consensus there. I'll grant you one thing: some of the other links may well have to be removed as well. All in good time though, and this is not a reason to include these ones as well. Fram 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions re: Religions as progressively true/as absolutely true

Here are some of my observations and information that you might want to include or insert in the Entry Religion:

1. Bahai according to its official Website has about 5M believers. Spiritism alone, not counting Spiritualism and Channeling count for more and teach basically the same truths. Yet the latter are not mentioned in this regard in this Entry. Perhaps you might consider inserting this information.

2. Hinduism believes in Avatars, advanced beings who volunteer to reincarnate in flesh and aid us in our development providing additional instruction and examples, as needed.

3. Judaism is still waiting for its Messiah.

4. Buddhism awaits the coming of Maitreya who is to provide the next progressive step forward.

5. Christianity insists that Christ will come again. Even as many Fundamentalist Christians insist that Truth is already revealed in full, Jesus affirms that his parables will be further explained and he will speak more plainly, and adds that the Holy Spirit will guide us to “all truth”.

6. New Age – The Aquarian Gospel expressly declares that Christ comes at first of every new age. Theosophy, Lobsang Rampa for Lamaism, Spiritism of Kardec and the ARE of Edgar Cayce all teach that the entire Physical Plane is simply a school system for evolving spirits. References are made to Root Races and Rounds of Existence in the Eastern Teachings and to Ascending Orders of Spirits in the Western counterparts. New Agers in general and all of these 5 major groups expect that Christ, not necessarily the same entity as Jesus, is coming in the flesh in this Age of Aquarius.

Personalized instruction and guidance is specially fitted to each individual spirit-student according to his level in the order of evolution. This accounts for the wide-spread disagreements in regard to what the true teachings are. Precisely, the New Age Movement is the actual preparation for this upgrading in our instruction in this New Age and the coming again of Christ.

Note that while there are references in the Religion Entry relating to past prophets up to the present, these observations relate to future happenings.

I do not care to upset another’s work. Different writing styles may not be compatible and could result in disjointed and ineffective presentations. Although I may differ in certain aspects, we are all different, I nevertheless find the article on the whole to be reasonably well-written.

If you should also find that these information are worthy of mention, then I would request the previous writers to please help in the re-drafting and edit them into the Article. Angel 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The influence of reason in modern man's religious beliefs.

I respectfully recommend that the topic of Religion should include the topic of reason's influence in modern man's religious beliefs. For this purpose, and in its support, I submit the reference: [1]. To do otherwise and ignore this recommendation, failing in said inclussion, I believe simply promotes narrow mindedness, shortchanging the reader and perpetuating myths. Sincerely, Xavier March 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not acceptable as sources in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Jeff3000 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Your recommendation does not support a NPOV, it seems to be stating that religious beliefs are narrow minded and are myths. That is not neutral. Faranya 04:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion as a Byproduct of Evolutionary Psychology; Does anyone have any thoughts on how to integrate this material?

In a recent edit, the following (see below) was added to the entry. This type of theory is more generally covered in the "religion as a social construction" group. Is there a way to work a summary of material below into this group or another part of the entry? In my view, this information regards a theory too specific to be granted the space it was given. Since the theory is really a sub genre of the social construction group it also comes of as awkward and a matter of undue weight as it was posted. Anyone have any thoughts? Here is the afore mentioned text (follow the link above for the diff):

"Religion as a Byproduct of Evolutionary Psychology

This model holds that religion is the byproduct of the cognitive modules in the human brain that arose in our evolutionary past to deal with problems of survival and reproduction. Initial concepts of supernatural agents may arise in the tendency of humans to "over detect" the presence of other humans or predators (momentarily mistaking a vine for a snake). For instance, a man might report that he felt something sneaking up on him, but it vanished when he looked around.[3]

Stories of these experiences are especially likely to be retold, passed on and embellished due to their descriptions of standard ontological categories (human, artifact, animal, plant, natural object) with counterintuitive properties (humans that are invisible, houses that remember what happened in them, etc.). These stories become even more salient when they are accompanied by activation of non-violated expectations for the ontological category (humans that are invisible activates our intuitive psychology of mind; i.e. we automatically attribute thought processes to them). [4]

One of the attributes of our intuitive psychology of mind is that humans are interested in the affairs of other humans. This may result in the tendency for concepts of supernatural agents to inevitably cross connect with human intuitive moral feelings (evolutionary behavioral guidelines). In addition, the presence of dead bodies creates an uncomfortable cognitive state in which dreams and other mental modules (person identification and behavior prediction) continue to run decoupled from reality producing incompatible intuitions that the dead are somehow still around. When this is coupled with the human predisposition to see misfortune as a social event (as someone's responsibility rather than the outcome of mechanical processes) it may activate the intuitive "willingness to make exchanges" module of the human theory of minds resulting in the tendency of humans to try to interact and bargain with their supernatural agents (ritual). [5]

In a large enough group, some individuals will seem better skilled at these rituals than others and will become specialists. As the societies grow and encounter others, competition will ensue and a "survival of the fittest" effect may cause the practitioners to modify their concepts to provide a more abstract, more widely acceptable version. Eventually the specialist practitioners form a cohesive group or guild with its attendant political goals (religion). [6]"

Like I said, any suggestions?PelleSmith 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Response: Thank you for moving my inputs to this section for discussion instead of just deleting them. In the future I will "test run" material in a similar manner before altering an already accepted article. I did not feel that the current evolutionary psychology theories of religion belonged under the "religion as a social construction" group due to the fact that the concepts of supernatural agents arise initially from individual brains due to their vary nature. However, they do go through a social "vetting" process when repeated and passed along. The theories derived from evolutionary psychology might fit better if the section were re-titled "Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" instead of "Religion as a Social Construct." The only section in the "religion as a social construction" group that seemed similar was the line: "The Theory of Religion Model states that religion arose from some psychological or moral pathology in religious leaders and believers." However, this is not the same theory, as evolutionary psychologists do not regard religion as arising from a "malfuntioning" brain, but rather as arising from a normal functioning brain while still being a misperception. The current theories are relatively new (Pascal Boyers book Religion Explained was only published in 2001) but have enormous predictive power. The theory successfully explains the cross cultural similarities of supernatural beliefs and the types of supernatural agents that inevitably arise. It also explains the nearly universal anthropomorphic nature of those agents. Finally, the theory gives detailed, testable explanations for each of the steps in the origin and evolution of religious concepts. I look forward to reading you comments. Keyrok

I thought this was a high quality, well referenced addition. IMO it does belong under the "social construct" section, which I support renaming as suggested here. (Humans are naturally social animals, so any social construct that arises as universally as religion can arguably be taken as natural. I am, however, no sociologist, and would defer to expert opinion.) Yes it was lengthy, but frankly the other "social construct" theories could use some expansion. They're covered here in far too sketchy a way to be useful. If that means splitting the article at some point, fine. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly against renaming the social construction section as suggested. If we get down to it anything and everything is a "natural" phenomenon. The idea that human beings, given social contexts, create religions is quite different from the idea that religion is encoded in the biochemistry of our gray matter. Perhaps we should create a fourth category named as suggested. Then we could move relevant theories there, along with the one associated with Boyer. However, this one theory cannot be afforded more than the short paragraph that other specific theories are afforded. These categories after all are theory "groups". The place for more lengthy explanation would be in an entry of its own. Then you could link to it from here. So you will need to boil this down to a couple of good sentences either way. Also, Keyrok, as much as I realize you like this particular theory, its not necessary to try to sell it to us on the grounds that it has great predictive value, etc. The issue will never be whether or not any one of us find the theory more convincing than other theories (and I personally do not). The issue is most practically, is this theory prominent enough to go in? If the answer is yes, then it gets afforded no more space than any other. Does that make sense?PelleSmith 02:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly your point makes sense. Perhaps it fits better in the expanded link DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGION which already has a link to it on the RELIGION page. I have included it there under the Social Construct section for now. Would you consider a two line description on the main RELIGION page under the RELIGION AS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT section along the lines of: A recent theory that has arisen from the science of evolutionary psychology is that religion is essentially a byproduct of the cognitive modules in the human brain that arose in our evolutionary past to deal with problems of survival and reproduction (agent detection, contagion avoidance, intuitive theory of mind, etc.). The interplay of these various modules produces concepts of supernatural agents that care about human behavior and can be interacted with through rituals. Keyrok

OK. I think there may still be a notability problem. I did some research, and I could only find 3 reviews of this book by searching the religion database (ATLA) which covers all major journals dealing with religion in the United States (along with several European ones). The two reviews not written by psychologists are rather disparaging. Now, the issue isn't whether or not they are correct in their critiques of Boyer, but that his relatively NEW theory is clearly not a very well received one at the moment. Given that it is so recent, it is difficult to see how any argument could be made for its notability. It is new, it is novel, and it has been met with criticism by most people who have bothered to pay any attention to it. That's not a good start. Above I wrote: "The issue is most practically, is this theory prominent enough to go in?". Unless you can convince me otherwise I believe the answer to this question is NO. However, maybe I'm misguided on this, and also it is possible that other "theories" mentioned in the entry should also be similarly tested. So in my opinion I think we shouldn't include even this much. Maybe you can make an entry for this theory and we can name drop it with a link. Anyone ideas?PelleSmith 23:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC) FYI ... 3 reviews since the date of publication in 2001 is very, very little, especially for a relatively well known name like Pascal Boyer.PelleSmith 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am quite certain that the article would benifit from inclusion of some reference to these theories. First, the Karl Marx and Bertrand Russell quotes are really nothing more than trite aphorisms and are not being used as models for the study of religion by any modern researcher. As such, if the theories based on evolutionary psychology don't belong, then these don't either. Second, the use of evolutionary psychology and cognitive neurology to explain the phenomenon of religion is clearly a growing field of study as evidenced by the large number of books readily available on the subject.

Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, Pascal Boyer, Basic Books (2001)</

www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/bec/papers/boyer_religious_concepts.htm, Funtional Origins of Religious concepts, Pascal Boyer</

Faces in the Clouds, Stewart Elliot Guthrie, Oxford University Press (1995

How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion. By Ilkka Pyysiainen

In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (Evolution and Cognition Series) by Scott Atran

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett

The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation by Matt Ridley

The evolutionary psychology of religion.(Cover story): An article from: The Humanist [HTML] (Digital) by Steven Pinker (Author)

Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (Hardcover) by Raymond F. Paloutzian (Editor), Crystal L. Park (Editor)

Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion (Hardcover) by Lee A. Kirkpatrick (Author)

Where God and Science Meet [Three Volumes]: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion (Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality) (Hardcover) by Patrick McNamara (Editor)

Also, I found several reviews of the Boyer book Religion Explained. Although they don't agree on all points (but do on many) they clearly recognize it as a theory worth consideration.

http://www.kellybulkeley.com/articles/reviews_boyer_pyy.htm

http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/religion/boyerp.htm

http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/rev1_9_02.html

If you still do not believe that the Wikipedia readers would benifit from awareness of the latest theories can you provide a few references for books or articles that list the most accepted current explanations for the origin and development of religions? I do not believe that the article, as written, does justice to the topic. Keyrok (7 Feb 2007)

First and foremost we are not here to judge or decide on what "Wikipedia readers would benefit" from. We are here to attempt to create and refine encyclopedic entries on various subject matters. The judgments we make are not in terms of what theories are "better" than others but on what theories are notable or prominent enough. You may claim that quoting Marx is trite, but a great deal of English speakers can identify Marx with a particular view of religion quite readily. This says nothing about how well Marx has elaborated his theories, but how recognizable they are--how much they "mean" in reference. In terms of the overarching theoretical inclination that you point to in your laundry list of books, your point is well taken. I think there is an increasing tendency to reduce religion to psycho-somatic, neurological, and/or other such phenomena. This tendency is quite notable presently, but through the more popular works you have mentioned and not, as far as I know, through Pascal Boyer. In academia, I'm afraid, explaining the origin or development of religion has long fallen out of fashion. The closest thing to a well received and often quoted recent work in that vein, is Roy Rappaport's "Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity". By this I mean most specifically that more than just a narrow group of academics have found Rappaport's work of use in understanding the roots of religion and society. But most academics feel that theories attempting to explain what Boyer's theory tries to account for are more problematic than productive.PelleSmith 00:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am endeavoring to reach a consensus here. Earlier you said that "The place for a more lengthy explanation would be in an entry of its own" and so I moved the bulk of the discussion to the link page for Development of Religion. You also said that "you will need to boil this down to a couple of good sentences either way" which I did on the main religion page before you deleted that also. Then you said that "The issue is most practically, is this theory prominent enough to go in?" so I provided a list of authors and books that are approaching the study of religion from this standpoint. In fact, one of the references already used in the section on the development of religion (Johnson, George (2006-01). "Getting a Rational Grip on Religion: Is religion a fit subject for scientific scrutiny?". Scientific American. Retrieved 2006-10-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) makes reference to the Pascal Boyer book. I have not found a copy of Rappaport's book yet, but the Cambridge web page sums it up as "Combining adaptive and cognitive approaches to the study of humankind, he mounts a comprehensive analysis of religion’s evolutionary significance, seeing it as co-extensive with the invention of language and hence of culture as we know it." (http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521228732) which, although not the same in all aspects, is similar in some (namely, the evolutionary roots of religion in human cognition). According to the "About Wikipedia" page, "Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited." Along those lines, I believe the following addition to the Religion as a Social Construction section of the Development of Religion area fits the standards of Wikipedia (Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research) and should be included:

A recent theory that has arisen from the science of evolutionary psychology is that religion is essentially a byproduct of the cognitive modules in the human brain that arose in humanity's evolutionary past to deal with problems of survival and reproduction (agent detection, contagion avoidance, intuitive theory of mind, etc.). The interplay of these various modules produces concepts of supernatural agents that care about human behavior and can be interacted with through rituals. ^[1]

Of course, if you think it could be worded better, I would certainly appreciate your editing input. If you still disagree, it would probably be best if we requested mediation or arbitration from other editors. Let me know what you think. Keyrok, 11 Feb 07.

Power wiki admin, please help to add the following info....

I wish to see the relevant accademic periodicals to be listed in the article. These include:

http://www.nlx.com/journals/rvm.htm

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-8294&site=1

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cmhr;jsessionid=y1kcojl3oqlk.victoria

http://www.leaonline.com/loi/ijpr?cookieSet=1

http://www.leaonline.com/loi/jmr

http://rra.hartsem.edu/reviewof.htm

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/ ---- review needed

http://www.springerlink.com/content/1573-6571/

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1368-4868

http://www.religionandnature.com/journal/

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/13537903/

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/rsr

http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/jjrsMain.htm

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1479-2206&site=1

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1350-7303&site=1

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0384-9694

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cjbv

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JR/toc.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/jra

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/crss

Please elaborate. Wikipedia is not a directory of links. The only reason a journal would be listed is through a reference to a specific article with a relevant piece of information. What exactly is your wish?PelleSmith 12:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

----Please have a look at my comment regarding this issue at Talk:Christianity. Sadly, none of the above journals are referred by the artile. The information contained in those journals represents the most current religious movement authentically and veritably on the earth. I would like to know how the front article reflects the modern religous movement which is current and updated? If not, the article is at least partially propagating cults rather than religion, I'm afraid

Mormon apologists at work here?

It seems to me that a general article on religion should not include claims by Mormon apologists (obviously) about the uniqueness of their religion as a via media between all the squabbling others: "The model of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is nuanced differently than either the progressively true model or the absolutely true model, in that its leaders have taught (etc.)" This claim is not obviously true, nor do the references cited substantiate the claim in the least. The claim in the article is not whether Mormons believe this, but whether this belief is unique to Mormons alone.

The paragraph I cite seems a classic apologetic "setup" -- pose two alternatives which, in conflict, seem equally unattractive; then offer a via media that will seem attractive to anyone of good will. It's a fallacy of oversimplification.

Furthermore, it's not obvious that Mormonism poses the only possible via media. That it's the only one mentioned suggests that for this Wikipedia article, "the Mormons got here before anyone else."

Finally, for a general article about religion to get as granular as to dote on a single sect on the fringes of Christendom -- well, it smacks of apologists at work.

rasqual 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur (although I had to look up Via Media in Wikipedia to understand what you were saying). As it is written, it seems to fit more in the "Progressively True" section. Keyrok, 12 Feb 07.

Atheism should be removed from the "Belief Systems" block

It should be placed in a "Non-belief Systems" block to avoid confusion, as atheism is in no way based on belief.

Atheism isn't based upon belief? It isn't a system of belief? I don't even know where to begin understanding how someone would substantiate that claim but please do so we can have a reason to make this change.PelleSmith 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Atheism is not based upon belief. Atheists in general do not have a belief that deities do not exist in the same sense that theists have a belief that a deity does exist. Atheists lack belief in deities, which is not the same as believing they do not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy111988 (talk • contribs)

And a Pure Lands Buddhist doesn't have "a belief that deities exist" in exactly the same sense as a Catholic. So what are we to make of that? By the way, atheists do not simply lack belief in deities. In order to "lack belief in deities" as opposed to affirmatively believing that deities do not exist, you either have to acknowledge the question "do deities exist?" yet be unsure of the answer, making you an agnostic and not an atheist, or you have to be totally ignorant of the whole question, which is rather absurd. Atheism is the term given to the affirmation, or "belief", that deities do not exist. Or to quote the entry Atheism: "Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist". While I agree that the type of belief isn't exactly the same, as I have suggested, the types of belief in deities between traditions isn't always either. Atheism is just as much a system of belief, of believing something, as various theisms are. I don't agree with your suggestion to remove it from the box.PelleSmith 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Even the weakest forms of "weak atheism" affirm a belief about the question of belief in a deity. The only form that doesn't is the one I mentioned above as being absurd, because in our present context it is. That is being unaware of the idea of a deity in the first place--or being totally ignorant of the whole question.PelleSmith 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you will find upon reading atheist literature that very few atheists affirmatively believe no deities or higher powers exist. The definition of atheism on the Atheism entry seems to be the theist definition and not the one atheists define it as. Belief for and belief against something are not the only two options. Between them lies doubt, which is what atheists have.

And doubt is also what most "theists" have. Do you think most people who consider themselves religious think they know with certainty that a deity exists more so than people who claim to be atheists know with certainty that no deity exists? Look, the fact remains that atheism is as much of a belief system as the religious traditions, and non-religious traditions, in that belief system box. By the way, the atheism you are identifying, this weak atheism that you claim most "atheists" have is a very new phenomenon. "Doubters" similar to today's weak atheists would in the past never have called themselves "atheists". Many of us today, who might also fit this "weak atheism" category refuse to identify as such as well given the literal and classical understanding of what atheism is -- the affirmative belief that there are no deities. But this is all mincing words. We all believe something.PelleSmith 12:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I seems fine where it is to me. If you removed it you'd also have to remove agnosticism, humanism, etc. based on the same logic. On the other hand, while humanism is a full belief system (Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism, pseudoscience and superstition) atheism is generally just a stance on a particular topic. However, I think it fits in the section as a list of alternative beliefs about religion in general. Keyrok, 16 Feb.

What would you say is a more accurate description of atheism - the definition given by atheists, which states that most atheists are "weak" atheists, or the definition given by theists, which is designed to discredit atheism by asserting that it is based on just as much belief as their system is?

How about we leave them in there, asterisked or "(see note below)"ed, and put a prominent note immediately below the list that "Atheism is not a belief system per se..." or however you want to word it (I'm not trying to weasel-word it to suggest, "Atheists sort of have a belief system, but not reeeeaallllyy..." -- which is why I'm suggesting someone else write the text). If atheism, agnosticism, etc are not listed, one might come to think that their omission indicates that their numbers are negligible, rather than excluded because of a strict definition of belief. Given the contentious nature of (and around) religion, I think it's important to include all the numbers possible of all the (non-)belief (non-)systems. Just a thot. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 23:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's transparent belief-ist/faith-ist/theist POV to assert that Atheism is simply another form of belief. That line of reasoning is designed to nullify the atheistic worldview advantage in the predominating epistemology of our time (at least among the world's educated elites), which is so strongly biased to empiricism. It turns on the meanings of the words Belief, Truth and Knowledge. PelleSmith quotes the Atheism entry too selectively above. The full lead reads as follows: "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist. However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities." All of that said, I also concur with his point in Talk:Religion#Disputed_Lead_addition below, that the article risks becoming over-focused on the contentious belief aspects -- which for this style of community process will leave it in a perpetual state of dispute, edit, counter-edit and flamefesting -- rather than the more factual behavioral aspects of Religion, which are much more suited to an NPOV treatment. I like the idea of creating a separate article as a home for the philosophical debates and trying to keep this one as neutral and stable as possible. Ubarfay 02:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Worst Article on Wikipedia Award

"Religion" has my vote for the Worst Article on Wikipedia. It is such a convoluted concatenation of compromises, that it conveys nothing. If you didn't know what the term meant, could you get any sense of it from reading the first paragraph, or even the entire introduction? This definition reduces the power of the English language to convey concepts with terms. According to Wikipedia, "religion" has no associated concept, just a bunch of conflicting compromises designed to keep anyone's toes from being stepped on. If we can't come up with something better than this, those accusing us of groupthink are right: Wikipedia is nothing more than compromise by the masses except when overpowered by a self-proclaimed authority. Sorry to be so hard on you, but despite all your efforts, the cumulative result of the work done here is a big stinking pile of cow dung. --Peter the Great 19:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Which of course is why it's rated a "B". You sound like one of those "self-proclaimed authority" people.--Smkolins 22:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Important update reverted...

Jeff3000 reverted my addition to the beginning of the Religion article. He coded it a "(rvt POV)". I'm asking for clarification. There are 2 components to my addition--firstly, that "Most commonly held religions suggest that God exists", and secondly, that "There is no empirical evidence for God's existence." Which part do you question, Jeff? -- Murftown 06:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The second; there are many proofs of the existence of God, based solely on logic, such as William Hatcher's proof, which you can find in his book, "Love, Power and Justice." You're statement is a major oversimplification of the discussions of the existence of a supernatural being, and has no placement in the lead of an article. -- Jeff3000 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But I was not speaking of purely logical proofs. I was speaking about empirical evidence. The source I cited compiles all well-known arguments for and against the existence of God, and it does not mention any empirical arguments for the God's existence. Maybe we just had a misunderstanding? -- Murftown 06:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Only mentioning one type of evidence by ignoring other types of evidences is not NPOV, and is not allowed, especially in the lead of the article which is supposed to be a summary of the article. This article is not about the existence of God. -- Jeff3000 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community places a very high priority on verifiability (see Wikipedia:verifiability). While the article itself is not about the existence of God, most widely-held religions do center around it. Therefore, when people learn about religion it's very appropriate and important for them to think about the verifiability (by empirical evidence) of God. That's why I'm making this update. -- Murftown 7:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, verifiability is one of the three core policies, but so is Neutral point of view. From the verifiability page about the three core policies: "They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." From the Neutral Point of View policy page: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source". Thus you addition, not only was in not totally relevant to this page, it is not neutral. -- Jeff3000 07:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is very important. What I posted is factual and, I feel, revelant to people who are reading about religion, but I will try to improve my update, paying special attention to NPOV. -- Murftown 7:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What you feel is revelant is besides the point. This is an article about religion, not an article about the existence of God, and might I also add that there are non-theistic religions. Your addition does not fit within the confines of WP:LEAD. -- Jeff3000 07:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits again. Who says that the existence of God is "crucial to a well-grounded study of religion", and why does that statement have any place in the lead when it plays no part in the rest of the article. -- Jeff3000 07:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, your edit is still not NPOV, since it clearly implies in it that belief in a God is an unreasonable belief, when there are tons of totally logical proofs of the existence of God. Instead of placing your POV edits in the article, place them here, and let others comment on them. -- Jeff3000 07:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Instead of placing your POV edits in the article, place them here, and let others comment on them."

I think the best way to get feedback from others is to leave my edit on the page so people can see it. With your understanding, I will post it back there shortly, with some edits that will hopefully make it more agreeable to you.

"...there are tons of totally logical proofs of the existence of God."

As far as logical proof of God is concerned, I'll say "fair enough" about Hatcher's proof--with his 3 assumptions and a little 1st-order logic, Hatcher shows that there is some unique, atomic cause of everything. To me, "unique, atomic cause" sounds as much like a description of the gravitational singularity that may have preceded the Big Bang as it does like any kind of God we talk about in relation to modern religion. (Do note that Wikipedia says that God is "the sole creator, or at least the sustainer...", indicating that his/her main role is not to be a First Cause.) However, because my words and his proof together could create confusion for some, I'll go ahead and specify that I'm talking about "a God who holds sway over the present world." Hatcher doesn't even try to prove that.

"Secondly, your edit is still not NPOV, since it clearly implies in it that belief in a God is an unreasonable belief..."

My edit does not imply that. It notes the lack of empirical evidence, and notes that some persist in their belief in God for other reasons that they feel outweigh this lack of empirical evidence. For example, many justify their beliefs using the many non-empirical arguments for the existence of God provided right here on Wikipedia. I mention in my edit that fact that many persist in their faith because I am attempting to "represent fairly and without bias all significant views..." (WP:NPOV) so that we can come to an agreeable state for this page.

"Who says that the existence of God is "crucial to a well-grounded study of religion", and why does that statement have any place in the lead when it plays no part in the rest of the article."

But the existence of God is all over this article! For example, the "Religious Belief" section says "Religious belief usually relates to the existence, nature and worship of a deity or deities and divine involvement in the universe and human life." The Criticism also section discusses the existence of God, and the "Development" section discussing the various ways a religion may be held to be "true" is conceptually related to the existence and nature of God. I think most people will agree that their religious beliefs (or lacks thereof) are strongly correlated with their thoughts on the existence of God.

"...and might I also add that there are non-theistic religions." (from a previous comment)

True. I am talking about the "most commonly-held religions". For clarity, I'll narrow my focus to the 3 most commonly-held ones, Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Correction by Murftown--Judaism is not actually one of the 3 most commonly-held religions. Nonetheless, these 3 religions are very important in our world, so I will narrow my focus to them.

"I have reverted your edits again."

I see that. I'll put up a new version, with changes made in response to your concerns, and we can discuss it. Please, in the open spirit of the Wikipedia community, leave it up while we discuss this important addition to Religion. That way, others can see the change and contribute their thoughts to the discussion. -- Murftown ~8:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit as it currently stands is both POV and factually incorrect. Judaism is not and never has been one of the most commonly-held religions. The third most commonly-held religion that still is a religion and not the absence of religion altogether is Hinduism. Judaism would be lost in the statistical noise if it were not so prominent for other reasons. You acknowledge this above, but didn't correct your text. Your judgment of which religions are the most important is also POV. You have supplied no standard for why Judaism should be included. Buddhism is at least as important from an NPOV both culturally and historically, and since it's non-theistic it would be very inconvenient to the point you're trying to make.

It's really not at all the case that the existence of God has any bearing on religion as a human phenomenon -- which, in order to be NPOV, is the tack this article must take. If it is as important as you claim, you should provide a cite; otherwise it's OR. (Yes, I saw your counterargument to Jeff above. I disagree. Belief is one thing; the truth of that belief is another.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Judaism is not and never has been one of the most commonly-held religions."

Yes it is. How many religions are there? 1000? Many more than that, I'm sure. But how many religions have more members than Judaism? 10 or 11. We can reword this if it will make you feel better this doesn't seem like a factual error.

"You acknowledge this above, but didn't correct your text."

I did. I changed it from "the 3 most commonly-held religions" to "three of the most commonly-held religions".

"Your judgment of which religions are the most important is also POV."

I made no such judgment. I'm talking about "three of the most commonly-held religions". Nothing about "importance".

"It's really not at all the case that the existence of God has any bearing on religion as a human phenomenon -- which, in order to be NPOV, is the tack this article must take. If it is as important as you claim, you should provide a cite; otherwise it's OR."

Let's be clear about OR. Wikipedia does not allow us to contribute "facts" that come from our own original reserach, without backing them up with sources. What Wikipedia does not do is require you to back up you decisions regarding what to write about with sources. All the facts in my writing are either generally accepted or cited. My assertion that the existence of God is important to consider when learning about religion does not technically require justification in the form of a reference, but I provided a good reason for its placement so that readers and fellow authors would not be confused. As a good bit of this article itself is written about the ways religions may or may not be "true", the Wikipedia community has already stamped my judgment (that truth, not just the belief phenomenon, is important with respect to religion) with their approval. -- Murftown 12:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

About "There is no empirical evidence for God's existence." and issues of verifiability.... I thought the policy about verifiability is not about whether something is true or not but whether it is verifiably maintained as a fair statement of the understanding in the field of knowledge being discussed. So the point isn't if God's existence is empirically verifiable. The point from a wikipedia pov is whether a substantial and fair statement is to point out a stance on the question of the existence of God. I would suggest that the argument over the existence of God by any means of proof is itself the fair statement to make - that there is no concensus that any methodology has proved God does or does not exist to the majority of people, but that most people don't question the existence of God on the grounds of proof (though many incorporate elements of one side or the other of the "proof" question as an adjunct to their point of view.)--Smkolins 12:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I will respond to your comment, but first I will go dancing. -- Murftown 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Lead addition

Here is the disputed addition to the lead in its entirety. I have reverted it again because, as others have pointed out at the very least it does not belong in the lead. However, finding the above discussion confusion to look at I am repasting the text here with some additional comments as to why I reverted despite the ongoing conversation.

Because three of the most commonly-held religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) center around the existence of a divine God who holds sway over the present world and universe, careful consideration of the existence of God is crucial to a well-grounded study of religion. There is no empirical evidence that God exists and wields present influence on our world^[2]; however, many people believe in his/her existence anyway, some of whom suggest that it is an element of good character to have faith strong enough to outweigh empirical data.

Problems:

The existence of a "divine God" is not part of all religious belief systems (in their essentialized forms), nor is it a matter of great importance to many sects, subgroups, and/or individuals adhering to or identifying with religious belief systems that in their essentialized forms are said to "center around the existence" of such a God. The latter aspect should be considered here--particularly by someone so interested in "empirical evidence". The manner in which the existence of a deity is conceived of in theory, expressed in practice, and held in matter of importance within the larger picture of the religious tradition varies drastically even within the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths mentioned above. An "empirical" picture of even these three traditions shouldn't essentialize the importance of the existence of God as much as the above statement has done.
The fact that discourses about religion seem to so often center around this issue--belief in a deity or deities--has been throughly criticized several times over by numerous scholars as a product of a particularly Western, Christian, and even more so Protestant way of conceptualizing religion. Do we fall pray to this discourse which is a product of monotheistic theologies and the interaction with such theologies by atheists, doubters and other critics of Christianity? Or do we attempt to present "religion" based upon empirical evidence of "religion", in its multiform existence?
Now I actually agree that there is "no empirical evidence that God exists" given the fact that I agree with standard scientific and philosophical notions of what constitutes "empirical" evidence--"logical proofs" are not empirical evidence. But the issue here isn't theism, or the proof of God. The type of empirical evidence that should concern us here is the type of evidence that supports the existence of religion and not the existence or non-existence of one or many deities. This means explaining the ways in which people believe in a or many gods, and what forms of practice they engage in relation to these ways of believing. That is what an empirical study or religion is concerned with.
What you ended up presenting is a point of view falling within the view of religion as a social construct. It implies that if we accept the presumptions of the current scientific community there is no empirical evidence of God. So what we would be describing, continuing the above logic, are belief systems based upon other forms of adjudication. This idea, is one I personally agree with, however many people who believe in God do not even agree with that. They do not see even an empirical problem (of course others don't care, others see compromise, etc. etc.). So why should we privilege one position on the existence of God in the lead to the entry on "religion", and not even "God"? This is why I also find your addition to the lead to be POV. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead.
Finally, in relation to what I have already written, I would like to make a more general appeal. This entry is already too wrapped up in an approach that privileges the "belief" side of religion. Religions aren't simply systems of belief, and the intricacies of systematic belief have usually been worked out by a very small minority of elites--historically and cross-culturally. Practices, folk traditions, and other forms of expression are as, or perhaps even more important to how religion actually takes shape on the ground. Your addition to the lead accentuates this problem even more. Lets work to tone down the theism, and belief orientation of the entry instead of accentuating it.PelleSmith 17:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for an eloquent and well argued point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

General to the Specific

A great article starts with the most general thing held about the meaning of the term, something with which everyone agrees. In order for a term to have meaning, it must convey at least one small universally accepted piece of information. Otherwise the term is useless as part of a universal language.

Making the English language useless is the most common detraction we hear of Wikipedia. Are we going to prove our detractors right, or is there something about the term "religion" with which we can all agree?

Can we agree that a religion must be held by more than one person? If it were held by only one person, wouldn't it just be called a belief?
Can we agree that a religion espouses beliefs that cannot be proven via the scientific method? If it could be proven empirically, wouldn't it be called science?
Can we agree that using the word "general" in the first sentence signifies that we have failed to come up with anything at all that is universally accepted about the term?

I tried my hand at creating a first sentence that conveys information about "religion." Do you think my edit conveys more information or Jeff3000's revision of my edit? --Peter the Great 14:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first sentence espouses a POV that religion is unrational and illogical. While certain things about religion cannot be proven scientifically, others are logical, and have shown to be useful. Thus a statement like yours is not appropriate in a lead. I checked the definition of religion in multiple dictionaries and encyclopaedias, and none started like the way you did. -- Jeff3000 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the sentence I believe best conveys information about "religion:"

A Religion is a set of beliefs that are held by more than one person and are in excess of what can be proven via the scientific method or any other universally accepted means of authentication.

Nothing about that sentence implies that the beliefs are irrational or illogical. In fact, there isn't a single person on Earth who adopts only beliefs proven through the scientific method or other universally accepted means of authentication. You may want to put a positive spin on Religion, but definitions aren't about spin. They are about codifying exactly what people mean when they use a term. As a minimum, everyone means the above sentence when they say "religion." --Peter the Great 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Jeff on this. In no definition of religion I've ever seen is there a qualification regarding the scientific method. To do so strikes me as a pro-science bias. There is a general tendency to compare science and religion, as if they are diametrically opposed entities. Both exist outside the other. Let's put it this way: should the definition of "scientific method" include something about religious systems or faith? Probably not. The intro, as it stands, should be changed.--Jonashart 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The stated method of editing Wikipedia is to improve on the previous version. A version that conveys information is an improvement on one that does not. Using the word "generally" in the first sentence of a definition conveys no specific information about the term. Are we are so afraid of offending anyone that we can't write a definition that means anything? Is Wikipedia the ultimate example of groupthink? Language is only as powerful the ability of its terms to convey specific concepts. What, as a minimum, does "religion" convey? Instead of saying what doesn't work, let's concentrate on improvement. What does work?

Can we agree that a religion must be held by more than one person? If it were held by only one person, wouldn't it just be called a belief?
Can we agree that a religion espouses beliefs that cannot be proven via the scientific method? If it could be proven empirically, wouldn't it be called science?
Can we agree that using the word "generally" in the first sentence signifies that we have failed to come up with anything at all that is universally accepted about the term? --Peter the Great 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PTG: Yes to #1, no to #2, unsure about #3. The problem with number two is that it suggests that something needs to be proven. Again, it's a forced head-to-head with science and religion. Religion wasn't invented to contradict science, nor vice versa. Thus, I see no reason to engage in that sort of dichotomization from the get-go. Certainly, there's need for the discussion within the article, but not in the 'definition'. What defines religion is not it's difference from "science". Not at all.--Jonashart 16:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can agree that a religion must be held by more than one person, but I disagree with your formulation that those beliefs cannot be proved via the scientific method. Some of those beliefs cannot be proved by the scientific method while others can. Parts of religion have nothing to do with the supernatural (and thus nothing to do with being proved or unproved) and even when regarding the supernatural there are proofs of the existence of a god based solely on the rules of logic. Such a statement, which cannot be explained in detail, does not have a place in the lead of the article.

As for the word generally, from definitions of religion found on dictionary.com:

"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

Notice that the word generally is included because not everyone of the same denomination agree with all the beliefs, and so there is a generally accepted set of beliefs. -- Jeff3000 16:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, religion does not have to disagree with science. In fact, all eight of the world's great base religions were in exact agreement with known science at the time of their inceptions. That is why I specifically used the phrase "in excess of what can be proven."

A Religion is a set of beliefs that are held by more than one person and are in excess of what can be proven via the scientific method or any other universally accepted means of authentication.

If a religion were only based on scientifically proven concepts, it would cease to be a religion; it would be science. I'm pretty sure most of the people on Earth would agree with that. Science can be a subset of a religion, but science and religion are not the same thing. --Peter the Great 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PTG: Right, science and religion are not the same thing. But, they're also NOT diametrically in opposition. That's why adding anything about science in the definition is incongruous. What I believe you're getting at is the issue of faith, and it's role in religion. And yes, faith and science tend not to see eye to eye. However, I think we can trust Wiki readers to distinguish between the two. If we define with "faith" rather than "lack of science", it might be a better tact.--Jonashart 16:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To do that, you would need an agreed and precise definition of faith. --Peter the Great 16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

HA!! Now you're just being funny. But, of course, you're right. Nice little corner we've chatted our way into, eh? Ok, I'm willing and happy to keep hashing it out. Certainly not trying to butt heads.--Jonashart 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Faith has some cleanup issues of its own, but I would consent to defining it as a separate issue. In my opinion, faith is belief in something that cannot be proven via a universally accepted means of authentication. Therefore, if religion were based on faith, at least to some extent, religion would be in excess of what can be proven via a universally accepted means of authentication. We could phrase it as, "A Religion is a set of beliefs that are held by more than one person and based, to some extent, on faith," but wouldn't that mean the same thing, while giving the user less immediate information? --Peter the Great 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How are we getting more precise with our definition if we include the phrase "universally accepted means of authentication" as if that meant anything? What does does it mean? What is it? Empirically speaking a "universally accepted means of authentication" does not exist for more reasons that anyone here would like anyone else to start enumerating. Mentioning the scientific method is problematic for all the reasons already discussed, and this other phrasing just doesn't signify anything tangible thus making the definition even more ambiguous. That's my 2 cents.PelleSmith 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that we are never going to come up with a strong definition with which we can all agree, but consent can be larger than agreement. The term "religion" should mean something. When we say "religion," we are trying to convey a specific concept. That concept should be the content of this article, not some pussy footing around to avoid stepping on anyone's toes. An encyclopedia is not a soapbox from which to proclaim your spin, nor is it a compromise of POVs. It is a means of making a language stronger. A language is only strong if its terms mean something. In that respect, this was the worst article on Wikipedia when I arrived. I don't want to hear any more about what doesn't work. I want to hear what DOES work. If you can't come up with something better, something definite to which you agree, then you aren't helping the creation process at Wikipedia; you are only proving what its detractors say about groupthink. I'm sorry to be so direct, but this article was way off course.

Moving forward, unless I'm mistaken, it appears we all agree that a religion is a set of beliefs held by more than one person. Is there anything else to which we can all agree? --Peter the Great 18:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's also safe to say that every religion on Earth includes the assumption of some truth that is not universally accepted. Is there any disagreement on that point? --Peter the Great 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. My objection above was to a universally accepted "means" of authentication. This implies a universal method for authenticating a truth. Clearly religious belief systems contain truths that are not universally accepted ... but this hardly differentiates religious belief systems from other non-religious belief systems. Also, I strongly oppose this emphasis on beliefs in the first place. I wont regurgitate the pro-practice oriented drivel I usually post and I'm sure many don't agree with but if you are interested see above.PelleSmith 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Clearly religious belief systems contain truths that are not universally accepted..." Then that's something we can agree on. Working from the general to the specific requires us to start with what is generally agreed upon about the term. Whether you want that dangerous of an idea in an article is irrelevant to an encyclopedia. This isn't an advertisement for or against religion. It is a definition. It explains what people mean when they say "religion." As you noted on my talk page, people mean different things, but there definitely is some common ground. You've just found some. That common ground is part of the generally accepted definition of the term and therefore goes nearer the beginning of the article. Writing a great encyclopedia definition isn't rocket science when you leave out the spin. --Peter the Great 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PTG: As it stands now, are you still dissatisfied with the present opening? I've just reread it, and perhaps while not perfect, it's pretty good. Are you still waiting to add something related to scientific 'provability'? For what it's worth, I agree that we should be striving for a strengthening of linguistic constructs. One of the problems we find in defining religion is the notion of theory vs. practice. Is 'religion' a set of beliefs? Or must the actions of the adherents be taken into consideration? As I've asked my students: If every (fill in your member of your faith-of-choice) disappeared one day, and all we were left with was their sacred texts (for instance, for those that are textually based), would that religion still "exist"? Do you have to have adherents enacting those beliefs for any religion to "exist"? If so, that very much affects the definition. The opening we have now addresses this to an extent, but we may want to be clear on this. Is religion a theory, a set of guidelines? Or is religion whatever that religion's people do? A combination? Not sure we'll even agree on this, but it's fairly important for definition purposes.--Jonashart 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "generally" is confusing and weakens the definition. Jeff explained what he means in discussion, but the word isn't necessary. Of course people are going to also believe concepts outside of the religion, but the extent to which they adherence to collective belief is the notable concept in this article. Also, when anyone says "religion," they mean something more than just a belief held by many people. As you've noted, they could also be talking about the rituals and associated actions, but not always. The first sentence needs to include those things that people always mean when they say "religion."

Religion always has something to do with belief
Religion always has something to do with more than one person
Religion always contain truths that are not universally accepted
Religion always contain methods of determining truth that are not universally accepted

On the above four points, I think we can all agree. Whether you want people to focus on those four points is irrelevant. This isn't damage control. This isn't an influential writing. This is an encyclopedia. It focuses on the general to the specific, and these are the generally accepted concepts of religion. Am I leaving any out? --Peter the Great 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now this is good. I think you raise an interesting challenge: to what does "religion" always refer? And as you know, the easy answer is "well, we can't answer that". But I like the idea of trying, so I'm with you. One thing you've avoided, probably rightly, is the issue of divinity/supernatural. Confucianism is always a good example of a "religion" for which divinity doesn't really (traditionally/historically) come into play. But then, do we really define Confucianism as a religion? We have to define religion based on what exists as "religion": what's out there and how do we classify it. At which point, aren't we back to the question of theory vs. practice? I know, I know...this gets a bit circular.

I think your 4th point is getting very close to achieving our intended goal.--Jonashart 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As interesting as this exercise is can we take a step back for a minute and consider something. The above referenced posting I made on PTG's talk page was an appeal for PTG to consider the fact that hundreds and hundreds of academics in multiple disciplines (humanities as well as social sciences) have agonized and fought over this issue for quite some time now. "Religion" as we popularly use the term has referents so disparate that attempts to define it usually either fail to take into account its multiplicity or are so general that they are virtually meaningless. Take for instance a well known and widely referenced definition of "religion" by anthropologist Clifford Geertz:

(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (From "Religion as a Culture System").

This definition falls into the latter category and if you want a lovely treatment of that fact you can read Talal Asad's criticism in Genealogies of Religion. My point isn't that because the academy has failed so must an encyclopedia. My point is that there is a very well worn tradition for just the kind of problems faced here in the present with this entry. This isn't just any old entry either. "Religion" has a rather specific and peculiarly troubled passed. Lets not just gloss over that and think that we can solve this issue once and for all with some simple logic.PelleSmith 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: You of course make an excellent point. And nice Geertz add. I'm a big fan of his description of religion as "primordial".

So ultimately, we going to strive for that which is perhaps unobtainable? Sounds remarkably....religious ;) Yes, I suppose you're right. And maybe we're missing the simplest explanation as to why that is: "religion" is inherently subjective. Despite the throngs and throngs of believers in the world, religion is personal. So, like any individual faith, the overall concept of religion is "created" by the religious. Ok PS, I just gave you that one...but I'm not totally convinced :). Hmmmm....this one will bug me for a while.--Jonashart 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Monotheistic religions may be circular, self negating and inherently subjective, but encyclopedia definitions are not. In fact the only way you can avoid a strong definition is by purposefully trying to make it vague. Obfuscating the concept of religion may serve the interests of some of the members here, but it does not serve the purpose of a stronger language.

The method of creating a strong definition is actually extremely simple. You start with the generally accepted concepts associated with the term and work your way toward the specific and less accepted. The first sentence contains only those things that are always meant when people say "religion." The following sentences cover the term in various contexts. The body of the article can be about more controversial aspects with citings of who feels each way. None of the article is about selling a concept, so there is absolutely no reason for people to be scared about conveying too much information. We are simply reporting how the term is used, not whether the concepts inferred in that usage are correct. Stating that there is no intersection in how the term is used is bullshit. I've listed four intersections. While you may not want to focus on these intersections, that is too bad. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Its purpose isn't to give things your spin, to sell them, or to keep information from the public. We define terms here. We explain what people mean when they say something. Wikipedia is now the most cited reference in the world. When its definitions convey distinct information, that's a good thing, but when they convey nothing specific, like this article does, it weakens the language and the means for people to communicate.

Concentrate on what people mean when they use the term "religion." What do they always mean? What do they mean most of the time. This will dictate the first sentence and the first paragraph. The second paragraph will concentrate on notable departures from the norm. This is what makes a great article and it is totally doable when the people involved want the term to convey distinct information. Those who do not want terms to convey distinct information are in the wrong place because that's what an encyclopedia does. --Peter the Great 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK then, lets look these four propositions within the bounds of what has and still is deemed "religion". One example each should suffice since you're looking for what religion is "always":

"Religion always has something to do with belief"

False--see the numerous times anthropologists have been confronted with this answer to questions about why certain "religious" ritual enactments take place or must take place in a certain manner--"That's just how it has always been done", or "I don't know that just how you do it". What beliefs do these "religious" actions have to do with? And don't tell me that because some comparative-religionist in a cushy office at Oxford can give you an answer that it proves anything about the "beliefs" being enacted by the religious actors.

"Religion always has something to do with more than one person"

False--Is there always someone else involved when a pious Protestant is praying to his/her God or when a Buddhist meditates on the nature of the self? Sure, as a social scientist I would not say that religions exist unless there are shared systems of practice, belief etc., but "religion" can be quite solitary--that is not all aspects of the religious have to be in reference to the shared nature of the religious system. Hence, "religion" does not always have something to do with more than one person. Of course sociologist Robert Bellah is attributed with reporting an even less social form of religion popularly called "Sheilaism", because of the name given to his religiously individualistic informant. Sheilaism doesn't even have a "shared system of practice or belief".

"Religion always contain[s] truths that are not universally accepted"

This one is more difficult. Clearly no one will disagree with this statement here. No "truths" are universally accepted. However, all truths contained within a religion are not equally unaccepted or unacceptable. Given the rather high degree of variation that could be found between religions as well, as to what "truths" they contain and how locally or universally they are accepted this statement becomes even more meaningless.

"Religion always contain methods of determining truth that are not universally accepted"

Kind of true. It is true just as the last statement is true. No "method of determining truth" is universally accepted. However, again methods of determining truth can be eerily similar across religions and radically different across others. Again, I have to say, given the generality of the affirmative aspect of the statement how much does it actually tell us? Of course we haven't even discussed the differences that may exist in the very nature of truth. We are assuming that all religions claim some "truths"--claim some things that we can adequately categorize as "truths" internally to the religious belief system--and that they all have "methods for determining truths".

Clearly in my view the attempt to find absolute answers here is futile. You cannot make statements like "always this" or "always that" and think they are going to go down like a glass of warm milk. Why do you think this has been such a problem in academia? Because scholars are just quibbling fools incapable of simple common sense deductive reasoning? I'm beginning to think you're not willing to consider the larger picture of this problem. I'm not happy about the fact that "religion" encompasses more than we can chew neatly but lets get a grip on what it encompasses before we start looking for universals. I really do highly recommend the first couple of chapters of the book Conceptualizing Religion by anthropologist Benson Saler.PelleSmith 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ALSO I would like to note that I think people following this conversation are quite familiar with your method of creating a more linguistically affirmative entry. I also think that as you keep on repeating your point over and over about what (universally it seems) makes a great entry you keep on failing to account for any of the particular problems with making this entry a great one. PelleSmith 02:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. You don't want religion to mean anything, so it won't. It becomes another non-word, just like half the shit in Wikipedia. I give up. There's nothing wrong with the concept of crowdsourcing, but the reduction tools have to favor the most useful implementation, not the most dogmatic or heavy handed. The Wiki engine is popular today because it has no competition, but as soon as anything with a reduction method better than chronological comes along, the Wiki is going to seem absurdly unsuitable for enabling consensus. --Peter the Great 05:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Peter the Great for your very enlightening observations, comments and suggestions. I totally agree with you. Everyone is entitled to his own opinions and beliefs, of course.

However, the current Wiki policies won’t work in the long run in my view. It must be improved on. As it is, I too am inclined to give up on Wiki, for the same reasons.

Right now, this article rates a B. And I don’t see that it will ever rate higher unless something of a “miracle’ happens or the Superior Editors intervene. But that’s just me. Angel 00:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't all this discussion about the best way to rewrite the definition to match ones own conception of the term a form of Original Research? You shouldn't be coming up with your own definition but instead using a definition from a Reliable Source and I'm sure there are plenty. In fact, there are probably a lot of conflicting definitions of religion and it isn't our place to decide among them, so there should probably be more than one definition of religion on this page. --JeffW 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Way of life

I removed the sentence in the lead section "Religion can also be described as a way of life" because it is too general and vague, i.e., fluff. This is not POV (what is the bias?). Cj67 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

POV does not equal "bias". POV means "point of view"--having only one POV represented in an entry, or specifically excluding other POVs is often deemed "bias", and this is why the two concepts are frequently used together. Your point of view is that this is "fluff", but I am not claiming nor did I ever claim a bias in the entry or in your edit. I hope that is clear. My argument is that however vague or general you may think that "way of life" is as an expression, it is commonly used to describe religion(s). The reason to include it is, at the very least, on a sociological basis. Also, in regards to your second edit summary, the sentence has never stated that religion is the "only" way of life, but that it "can also be described as a way of life". I will change the phrasing so that the usage aspect is made more explicit.PelleSmith 14:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking up POV on wiki, the essence is bias. You also should add sources, since you are repeatedly asserting that things are "often deemed" or "often described" a certain way. Back to the main point, what does it mean to say that "religion" is "a way of life"? How would that help anyone understand what religion is? It seems to me that this description is contrary to the rest of the article, which distinguishes religion from philosophy. Cj67 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To call a philosophy a "way of life" is just as problematic as, if not more problematic than, saying that a religion is, by way of your criticism. The historical "world religions", in their various forms, for instance all contain several dogmatic and ritual proscriptions that specify actual "ways" in which human being are to "live"--are to carry on with life. On top of this, like some philosophies might, they also provide ideas or suggestions of "ways" one is to go about living life. While I agree that the phrase is vague I also understand why people use it. In terms of referencing the phrase are you actually saying that you are unfamiliar with this usage or do you just not agree with it?PelleSmith 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You say "To call a philosophy a "way of life" is just as problematic as ... saying that a religion is" -- but you don't think it's a problem to say religion is! I don't understand. You say that you agree that it is vague, but you rely on the fact that people say it. People say lots of things, like religion is the cause of many problems in the world. That doesn't mean it goes in the first section. It doesn't mean it's helpful. The essence of religion is not that it is a way of life, even if it has secondary effects in this direction. Is science a way of life? Politics? My complaint basically is that, while religion can affect how people live their lives, it is not correct to say that religion "is" a way of life, even if people say it. Cj67 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I called them both problematic "by way of your criticism". I hedge towards calling a philosophy a way of life more problematic, "by way of your criticism", given that at least religions tend to have mechanisms that regulate ways of living. Clearly in my view it is meaningful to call both "some philosophies" and most religions "ways of life" even though it is also a rather vague descriptor. I have given you reasons why this is the case (dogmatic and ritual mandates, as well as ideas and suggestions as to how life should be lived). Now maybe you could address your claim that "it is not correct to say that religion 'is' a way of life", and then maybe also address my answers which do not just boil down to "religion can affect how people live their lives" as you would have it. Sometimes, and to varying degrees, religions mandate how people live their lives. Lastly I would also ask that since you say that this is "not the essence" of religion you may tell us what is or at least how we may know that this is not.PelleSmith 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, neither the initial phrasing or my altered phrasing ever said that "religion is a way of life". I would like to make this abundantly clear. The initial phrasing said that religion "can also be described" as a way of life and my new phrasing says that religion "is often described as" a way of life. Lets be clear on what got us here, though I'm still interested to hear why religion isn't a way of life.PelleSmith 19:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I should add, that the aspects I am arguing for you to consider as integral to the description of religion as "a way of life" (dogmatic and/or ritualistic ways of regulating human experience and human behavior) happen to be very close to what several scholars have argued is the most essential aspect of religion--from Emile Durkheim, to Mary Douglas, to Roy Rappaport.PelleSmith 19:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Development of Religion Section

This section is just a long rehash of the Development of religion article. I think that all the sub-headings can just be deleted and leave the summary and the link to the article at the top. --JeffW 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Modification to "Skepticism"

The article had stated that "By definition, skeptics of religion are atheists or agnostics", with links to the definitions of atheist and agnostic. This was backwards: the definition of atheist or agnostic can only show that they are some subset of the "skeptics of religion". A counterexample to illustrate the original statement would be the existence of a single critic of religion who was not an atheist or agnostic; I don't think this would be very difficult to do.

I reversed the statement, although I would have preferred just to delete it. I assume the author mentioned atheists and agnostics to justify the section, "Criticism of Religion", by implying that these "skeptics of religion" must be critics of religion. I find this problematic for a number of reasons. A hypothetical person born in isolation from religion and free of religious thought is necessarily an atheist or agnostic; however, without knowledge of religion, this person cannot be a skeptic of religion. Furthermore, there is no explanation for what exactly a "skeptic of religion" is skeptical of; this person is probably not skeptical of the existence of religion, nor of the popularity of religion, nor of the significance of religion belief in the development, and so on. So, what is this "skeptic" skeptical of?Cgb8176 00:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion by country map

This map provides more misleading information than useful information, and I propose that it be removed. One example of the absurdities include Tibet following "Chinese religions". Why do we need this map ? A better map would be along the lines of Image:Human Language Families (wikicolors).png, and I am sure data is available. example deeptrivia (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the words "Tax exempt" appear somewhere in this article?

--Steven X 07:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image sizes

288px is just too large; on my screen they take over a third of the screen. I haven't seen this size on any other page. Some editors even complain that 250px is too large for pictures, and the lead image is not even a picture that has intricate details. Normally the images are set to thumbnail so that each user can have it at the size of their own setting. I will be reverting. -- Jeff3000 19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Then 225px (or 224px for the smallest image)? Something for uniformity ... J. D. Redding

As a side note, it would be nice to get the big images to float in the center and be bigger. J. D. Redding

I disagree; the images are supposed to be supplementary to the text, adding to the article, not being the article. -- Jeff3000 19:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Would this be too big? this is at 789px ...

J. D. Redding 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This would add to the article ... it a nice easy way to see the data. J. D. Redding 19:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely too big. These types of maps are used all over Wikipedia, and you will never find them any larger than thumbnail size; for those who want a larger image, they can click the image. -- Jeff3000 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Kindly do away with this misleading map. We need a map along these lines. deeptrivia (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And that's supposed to be less "misleading"? I have to inform you that there are no large areas of the US with a Jewish majority, not even New York City; and certainly not over the broad area of the Northeast as indicated there. As labeled, it paints with far too broad a brush. Perhaps if it wasn't copyrighted and a larger-res version was available, the original might be reasonably informative. But on a worldwide scale, most of the demographic boundaries shown much include a great deal of guesswork. Indicating the dominant religious groups by country is potentially not as fine-grained, but it's more accurate as far as it goes since the data are clearer. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Second that. While the borders of nation states are not ideal for such a map at least they can represent accurate information. Also, I don't think we should support a map that uses the word "tribal" to describe group of religions.PelleSmith 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was left out.

There's a pie-chart on the page that lists Traditional Chinese as 6% of the wporld total. Since the Chinese make up about a quarter of the world's population, how can this be so? PiCo 09:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Credibility Among Religions and Their Members.

When talking along the lines of religions, you have to take into account that Christianity has so many different variations of your spoken truth. For example, You have the Catholics Who believe In god and his teachings, yet seem to have forgotten about the gods that the very founders of their religion followed before the bible came into play in the very early times of the Roman and Greek empire. Before the bible was well known and discussed the Greeks and Romans believed in not one God, but several. They believed there was a God of war (Mars, God of war) God of love (Addonnas, God of love) and a god of fire. Though once human discovered that they could make fire with out the God of fire, they lost Credibility in the fact that there is indeed a God of fire. Once humans waged wars against eachother, yes there went poor old mars too. The list of gods is long and also forgotten. Now old Greek mytholorgy has more use in hollywood then it does serving the minds of the people in a spiritual way.

Then, another variation of Christianity is The door knocking Jehovah. They Believe that they follow the Gosphel and the teachings of the bible down to the letter, but seem to have forgotten to add in the new testimate. They also do not give praise to their god, Instead they praise his virgen mother who according to the Jehovah, is more significant in the history of the world then God! Infact they find God so insignigicant that they don't even celebrate his birthday.

King Henery the 8th foundered a new christian religion simply becuase he wanted to alter the fact that one could not be devorsed from their partner. His new religion would seem to have started an epidemic, craze or fashion if you will, of couples being devorsed. But how can this still be a Christian faith? they have strayed from the gosphel! When two humans become married, they say the vowels stating that they will remain in love 'untill death do us part'. These vowels are teachings of the bible.

Three examples of variations of the Christian Religian. Each of these variations have members with in their clan that are willing to die for what they believe in. How you one who is searching for a deeper meaning take one religion over another? Each have the same amount of credibility as the next.

Thank you for reading. Please reply as I am very interested in this topic. If you would like to discuss further with me the facts of religion or feel I am wrong in any of my facts please Email me or chat to me on msn. Combutcha@hotmail.com. Thank you.

Maybe Henry VIII couldn't get a devorse (sic), but I bet he could spell it...PiCo 04:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition of religion

Hi! How about a concise, common sense definition of "religion"? Religion: "A person's or culture's excuse ('justification by faith') for living." 4.249.228.231 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC) piers@woodriff.com

You think its an excuse? Not more like "that which makes it possible to carry on"? IceHunter 15:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

too many community references

There are at least five references to community in the first two paragraphs of this article. It seems like whoever wrote it was trying to make a point about community and not trying to inform about religion.--The burning bush 20:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Psychology behind religion

There should be a section about the psychology behind why so many people feel the need to invent un-provable supernatural beings they can worship. Surely some studies have been made about this. Personally I guess its fear, but that’s hardly scientific.IceHunter 15:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

npov, nonencyclopedic

I removed the following because it sounds like propaganda to me...

"Beliefs give you something to fall back on when you come across difficult times in your life, or across something you don't understand. For example, when someone close to your dies, religion often gives you a way to make sense of what is happeneing in what is otherwise a traumatic and caotic time in your life. It can give you a way to express your grief, a sense of understanding and routine to follow, to stop yourself falling into depression.

Religion is not there to punish, but to guide you through the difficult times in your life, to protect you from self-halm, from halm by others and disease, pain and suffering. For example, the jewish religion includes warnings about certain foods and, as modern medicine has found, some people have alergies to nuts, seafood and dairy products, which can be potentially fatal."

Perhaps something like this can be included if it's worded more neutrally: "It is claimed that..." Also, for anyone who believes in hell religion IS there "to punish." So this generalization doesn't make any sense. Halm ??

Gregbard 21:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Falsification

Science is based on falsification, to be true the fact must not ~~be able to~~ be proved false. Thus experiments that disprove a fact are deemed to invalidate that fact. If there is no experiment that can be done to test the falseness of a fact then the fact is not proven. Hardyplants 03:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC0.

That's not exactly right unless I'm reading you wrong. Please see Falsifiability. Empirical (or scientific) findings have to be falsifiable because it always has to be possible to prove them wrong. If no amount of empirical observation could ever prove a statement wrong then it is not falsifiable and hence not scientific. In other words when you write "to be true the fact must not be able to be proved false" you are making a confusing statement. To be true something must in fact be capable of being proven false ... it is the fact that observation doesn't support the possible falseness that makes it true.PelleSmith 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I also find the use of "falsification" in the text to be confusing. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm going to remove it. Could someone explain how it is better or even how it makes sense? I don't think the current language is all that great but I'm pretty sure "falsification" is the wrong word here. Experiments don't falsify but instead validate propositions that are themselves falsifiable. Again see Falsifiability or Scientific method. I'm reverting this as well.PelleSmith 03:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, most science is based on proving something wrong instead of something is true, a good scientific observation starts by eliminating what is false first. You can see this even in the daily newspaper were studies come all the time about drugs, a good drug does not produce side effects that out way its usefulness, the way to find out if the drug has side effects is to test its usefulness and bad side effects falsify its fullnesses. You can not look for unknowns but you look for things that falsify your premise.Hardyplants 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way I'm not exactly sure what you even mean here. What does "bad side-effects falsify its fullness" mean? Again falsifiability has everything to do with whether or not it is possible for something to be (see below) "refuted by experience". This means that an experience is conceivable that would refute the proposition but not that such an experience actually takes place.PelleSmith 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats a spell check error and a mis on my part -clearly in should read usefulness. Hardyplants 05:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The current word use is just passable, because falsification is part of evaluating any experiment. also using wikipedia and a referencing the meaning of words is tenitive at best for proper word definition. Hardyplants 04:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information the Wikipedia entries in question are quite sound. Let's quote Karl Popper himself:

The criterion of demarcation inherent in inductive logic--that is, the positive dogma of meaning--is equivalent to the requirement of that all the statements of empirical science (or all "meaningful" statements) must be capable of being finally decided with respect to their truth and falsity; we shall say that they must be "conclusively decidable". This means that their form must be such that to verify them or to falsify them must both be logically possible. Thus Schlick says: "... a genuine statement must be capable of conclusive verification"; and Waismann says still more clearly: "If there is no possible way to determine whether a statement is true then that statement has no meaning whatsoever. For the meaning of a statement is the method of its verification."

and he continues two paragraphs later more clearly to the point ...

But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is be taken as the criterion of demarcation. In other words: I shall not require of a system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.

While I admit his language isn't as clear as it could be it is certainly clear enough. If you don't want to trust the Wikipedia entries then trust the granddaddy of this very notion. The above quotes come from pages 17-18 of Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Routledge Classics edition. You can search it online at Amazon.com.PelleSmith 05:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well-yes that is why I added the word in the article, because that is the 'gold standard' for facts. Ps, any way we can have this talk page archived- its getting long. Hardyplants 05:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well we wouldn't archive this discussion if that is what you are suggesting. And if its a gold standard then we shouldn't misuse it.PelleSmith 05:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That some type of passive-aggressive snide remark? when ever was 'falsifiable' ever misused? Hardyplants 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the term because it didn't make sense in the text. I explained it here, and you answered with "that is incorrect, etc. etc." Not passive-aggressive at all, just a restatement of the original problem plainly and simply.PelleSmith 05:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought consider that remark stricken (and edit it away if you want) but I don't want to carry on in this way. I'm done. Of course I will gladly discuss Falsifiability itself if you wish to continue.PelleSmith 05:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You have the order misplaced, i posted here first the words was changed, and i cn the definition of the word: note from above "If there is no experiment that can be done to test the falseness of a fact then the fact is not proven."-- i seem to be doing this in the middle of your edit-so will end with I am not interested in changing the text over this one word if its going to be a problem. if it was not clear- then so be it, better clarity than obfuscation. My concern about being snide was the comment "Well we wouldn't archive this discussion if that is what you are suggesting" ---this page is very long and material more than a six months old should be archived. Have a good night and I hope we can walk away with no ill will.Hardyplants 05:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This regards three (originally two) sources used to cite information that, it should be noted, is not in dispute. However, these sources do not fit our standards for reliable sources. I mean no offense to the editor who contributed them nor do I mean to imply that the sources are incorrect, but merely that they don't meet standards of reliability. We should instead find reliable, published sources for this material. For information on what are and what are not reliable sources please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Attribution. While one can find similar statements in all of these guidelines this excerpt from Wikipedia:Attribution sums up the problem quite well:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately.

The key here is "published with a reliable publication process." If one reads on one sees that this means a publishing process that involves, for instance, peer-review or other mechanisms of fact checking. While the materials posted may have been written by PhDs in the subject matter they have not been "published with a reliable publication process." Why not find other sources that have? Also, the fact that something is housed on a University server does not in any way ensure that it has been "published with a reliable publication process." Again I have no complaints about the information itself, but lets do this the right way. Any objections?PelleSmith 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That would kill off 1/3rd of the sources in wiki- since i have seen many personla web pages even used as sources for info. I am more than open to "better" sources, but let these stand for now because this is a topic some people have already made up there mind about it and those sources have good info. Hardyplants 03:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use the poor quality of the sourcing of other entries or even other parts of this one as an excuse to keep bad sources in here. I quoted from guidelines and wikilinked three separate ones at that. I'm not making this stuff up. Again lets not compromise the integrity of this entry just because other bad sources exit on Wikipedia.PelleSmith 03:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I will see if you purge other online sources ---I will locate some "hard book" sources and post them in the next 24 hours, but I still think those links are a valuable source. Astronomy is not that well represented in my book collection my fields are biology/botany. Hardyplants 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

insulting lines

The article is fully protected, so I can not make changes. I wish the following lines to be changed, as they are insulting to religious people:

Some religious people maintain that religious knowledge obtained in this way is absolute and infallible (religious cosmology). While almost unlimited, this knowledge is unreliable, since the particulars of religious knowledge vary from religion to religion, from sect to sect, and often from individual to individual.

As a matter of fact, I myself agree with the statement made above. However, religious people certainly will not. I was looking for material for a discussion with a religious person. The idea of using observation as a source of knowledge is completely alien to him. Therefore, the above reasoning will be absurd for him, so he will perceive it as intentionally offensive.

Rumostra 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The entry is not fully protected at all. In fact I can't even see that it is semi-protected. Either way with a legit login you can edit it freely. If you can't edit it then there is something else that is wrong.PelleSmith 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Accounts younger than 4 days old still can't edit. See WP:SEMI --h2g2bob (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of that or have forgotten. Many thanks for the info.PelleSmith 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged it {{dubious}} to highlight discussion here. I don't really get what it's trying to say - it should be reworded. Note that wikipedia is not censored, however --h2g2bob (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Adhering to multiple religions

I think the 'citation needed' tag can be removed from the statement pertaining to that in the 'Present day adherents' section. Maybe replace it with a link to Syncretism

New Map

I think that a new religous map should be added to this article. This map should show a religon as it actually is and not by country. This will make it much more accurate. Thank you

^ Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, Pascal Boyer, Basic Books (2001)
^ www.wikipedia.org, Existence of God page.

[1] Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, Pascal Boyer, Basic Books (2001)

[2] www.wikipedia.org, Existence of God page.

[1]

[2]